In the past few days there have been three major stories in the ongoing battle …

Share this story

In the past few days there have been three major stories in the ongoing battle between proponents of Evolution and proponents of Intelligent Design, with each side taking what they considered important victories in the battle. Those of you who follow Nobel Intent are probably already familiar with two of these issues, but the matter is important enough that I wanted to cover it here on the NewsDesk.

Intelligent Design backers have cheered the State of Kansas, which is one of the original Creationism/Intelligent Design battlegrounds. Yesterday the Kansas Board of Education voted 6-to-4 to allow anti-Evolution statements to be provided to students if local school boards wish it. In a stunning move, the board literally redefined science to include the investigation and explanation of what is commonly called the metaphysical. The board also approved statements regarding recent challenges to Evolution which it considered valid, including challenges based on the fossil record. Nevertheless, the board has not mandated much of anything: with science now broadened to include metaphysics, authority is given to local school boards to decide just what they will teach. Many see it as a double-edged sword. While the teaching of Intelligent Design is not mandated, neither is the teaching of Evolution, and vice versa.

Keith B. Miller of the Department of Geology at Kansas State University and a member of the Affiliation of Christian Geologists has written an excellent review of the recent history of this debate in Kansas, and where things stand now.

Teachers and local school boards are free to establish their own curricula. However the exclusion of evolutionary theory as an explanatory framework for the history of life and as a unifying concept in the biological sciences, the exclusion of theories of the origin of the universe (Big Bang model of cosmology), and the removal of references to a very ancient Earth history from the standards have significant implications. These omissions are critical, and remove the core unifying concepts from the sciences of biology, geology, and astronomy. Since they will not be subject to state assessment tests, these concepts are much less likely to be taught in districts where there is vocal opposition. By throwing the issue to "local control" the state board leaves teachers much more vulnerable to complaints by parents or administrators eager to avoid controversy. Furthermore, the decision is already having an impact on textbook publishers. Since the decision, one publisher has removed an introductory chapter on the geologic history of Kansas from a history textbook for fear that it would limit sales.

Miller goes on to tackle the issue of "facts" versus "theories," and how anti-science rhetoric is missing the point of science as a whole.

Another major misconception is that science is simply the accumulation of observational fact, and theories are merely unsubstantiated guesses. This "facts only" view of science misses the core of what the scientific enterprise really is. In my opinion, nothing could be more deadly to teaching science than to divorce it from the unifying theories which give observations meaning. They make the world comprehensible. They also generate the testable hypotheses (expectations) that drive further exploration and discovery. When science is taught as only factual observation (something the standards passed by the Board would encourage), then disagreements among scientists and changing scientific views are seen as weaknesses and failings of scientific knowledge. However, the exact opposite is the case. It is the dynamic, changing, self-correcting nature of science that is its very strength. The less science is seen as a body of established knowledge, the more inherently interesting and exciting it becomes.

The new measures will not be placed into effect until 2007, and some suspect that there will be preemptive legal action.

Over on the eastern side of the United States, a kind of turnabout happened in Dover, Pennsylvania, where court proceedings have been underway for months looking into the legality of requiring science teachers to read a prepared statement on Intelligent Design to students. The Dover School Board implemented the text in October of 2004, and eight families promptly sued, saying that it was a violation of the separation of church and state. While much ink has been spilled on the historical origins and validity of the "separation of Church and State," its origins are not particularly important from a legal standpoint; the prohibition against teaching creationism in public schools comes from a 1987 Supreme Court ruling. Anti-Intelligent Design critics commonly point out that it was only when creationism per se was kicked out of the classroom that it morphed into "Intelligent Design," although others insist that this is merely coincidence.

This charge reappeared in Dover, and Intelligent Design backers insisted that their theories were not theological in nature. This claim became dubious once it was learned that the book they recommended was once originally a pro-Christian creationism work that was simply spot-edited to replaces reference to "creationism" with references to "Intelligent Design."

While the case has yet to be settled, voters yesterday in Dover ousted the eight incumbent members of the school board seeking reelection, voting each one of them out, and pro-Evolution candidates in. One member of the original board remains. David Napierskie, one of the ousted members, claimed that not all of the voters backing the pro-Evolution side were doing so because of ideology, instead suggesting that many were concerned about spending tax dollars on legal proceedings.

And finally, we turn to the Roman Catholic Church, which has long embraced Evolution as a scientific theory. Late last week Cardinal Paul Poupard urged Catholics to trust in science, lest religion slip into a dangerous form of fundamentalism that rejects progress and reason. While it has always been fashionable in some circles to slam the Catholic Church for its famous condemnation for Galileo, the church itself has consciously appealed to that negative moment in its history as an example of what the faithful should not do in the future.

"The permanent lesson that the Galileo case represents pushes us to keep alive the dialogue between the various disciplines, and in particular between theology and the natural sciences, if we want to prevent similar episodes from repeating themselves in the future," ; Poupard said. "We know where scientific reason can end up by itself: the atomic bomb and the possibility of cloning human beings are fruit of a reason that wants to free itself from every ethical or religious link. But we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism," he said.

While there are undoubtedly several possible reactions to the Catholic Church's position, one important aspect is this: Evolution and "God" are not mutually exclusive. Put simply, creationism/Intelligent Design is not the sole arbiter, owner, or propagator of the notion of a supreme being playing a role in the creation of the universe. No, creationism is a very, very specific theological set of presumptions about the nature of the supreme being, how the supreme being operates, and why (among other things). It is not, however, the only view of a supreme being, or the divine; this much should be obvious by the fact that only two religious traditions hold the Book of Genesis to be scripture, and even then, there is a great amount of diversity within these traditions as to how to understand Genesis. This is more or less a point about rhetoric, and an important one nonetheless, because all this talk about "God" and creation has essentially pushed plenty of alternative religious viewpoints to the periphery.

Share this story

Ken Fisher
Ken is the founder & Editor-in-Chief of Ars Technica. A veteran of the IT industry and a scholar of antiquity, Ken studies the emergence of intellectual property regimes and their effects on culture and innovation. Emailken@arstechnica.com//Twitter@kenfisher